Talk:Banaphar

Banafar were half ahirs and half rajputs

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA133&dq=ahirs+the+history+of+rajput&hl=en&ei=Q3FwTY3CNIeGvAOs2Im-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA133&dq=ahirs+the+history+of+rajput&hl=en&ei=Q3FwTY3CNIeGvAOs2Im-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false

book--Rethinking India's oral and classical epics: Draupadī among Rajputs, Muslims ...

By Alf Hiltebeitel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.71.160 (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 

banafar Rajput vans hi mp mahoba ka 106.204.212.124 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Banafar Ahir connection

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=INEnJvlv6JsC&pg=PA132&dq=ahirs+,Alha+and+Udal&hl=en&ei=rP-GTZ2kMIaycPnm8IYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=ahirs%20&f=false

page 97 http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=rP-GTZ2kMIaycPnm8IYD&ct=result&id=GBRuAAAAMAAJ&dq=ahirs+%2CAlha+and+Udal&q=ahirs

William Crooke

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hHM6baknNRIC&pg=PA138&dq=ahirs+,Alha+and+Udal&hl=en&ei=rP-GTZ2kMIaycPnm8IYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20%2CAlha%20and%20Udal&f=false page 73

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=LAKHTebAAoX5cfv2rf8P&ct=result&id=rG8IAAAAQAAJ&dq=ahirs+%2CAlha+and+Udal&q=ahir page 50

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=QgOHTf76LYG8cZvhoJ4D&ct=result&id=JDfaAAAAMAAJ&dq=ahirs+mothers+of+Alha+and+Udal&q=ahirs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For change name banaphar to banafar

Please change this name banaphar to banafar Vaibhav Singh banafar (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vaibhav Singh banafar: Going by Google Books result, "Banaphar" is far more common spelling. See WP:COMMONNAME. utcursch | talk 17:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Banafars are Rajputs

Some authors say that Alha was half ahir (which is not true) but even if this is true how can whole banafar community become ahir? Banaphars/Banafar are Rajputs only . I am myself a banafar, I am 100% Rajput .My mother is a chauhan Rajput while my father is a banafar Rajput. There is nothing like 49% or 72% Rajput LOL. In past ,Mahil Parihar used to hate Alha so he used to call his mother "low class ahir" out of jealousy. That was pure jealously and I invite everyone to UP, MP and Uttrakhand and see yourself that Banafars are Rajputs. There's nothing like 51% of 73 % Rajput, that's ridiculous. P.S. I don't support any kind of discrimination on basis of caste . Thakur Singh (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:V. We're not going to say anything that isn't in a reliable source, and we're not going to deduce based on personal knowledge. Basically, without some books etc to support your claim, you've just wasted your time posting here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes ofcourse banafar is rajput Prashant592 (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

True and Mahil Parihar was his sort of Mama ( mother's cousin brother). So how come Alha's mother becomes Ahir. No possi Rana of Bharat (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

What it suggests Alha after death of his mother was taken cared by some other lady, who was working with his father's household. Banaphar is even today a Rajput clan, Ahirs don't have such a surname Rana of Bharat (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rather than provide your own reasoning and deductions about what something might suggest or what might or might not be possible (which is prohibited by WP:OR), you need to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) that contradict the sources used in the article and which support the change you wish to make. Wikipedia goes on what sources say, not on unsupported claims made on talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

Volume - 6 Ksr31 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. QueerFilmNerd^talk 08:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Banaphar are a clan of Rajputs

Banaphar is a Rajput clan and they are related to the Rajput warriors alha and udal. Alha's father (dassraj) married to devaki which is the sister of mahil parihar (parihar is also a rajput clan).In 12th century both shows the Rajput bravery in the medieval period. According to legends and folklores that alha was made immortal by goddess sharda and undefeated but his brother udal was died in the war between the great chandel king paramdidev or parmal and the prithiviraj chauhan (king of chauhan dynasty).It is wrote in the alha kand ( referring to poetic works in hindi which consists of a number of ballads describing the brave acts of banaphar heroes alha and udal) that alha and udal are rajput. Bruce nilon (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) if you want to include any of that in the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Ahir to Rajput 2409:4043:2B08:FDDB:392A:5FF1:B898:8FC1 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please state exactly what change you wish to make, and provide a reliable source for it (see WP:RS). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Ahir to Rajput Ultimate survi (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC) (Ultimate survi (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC))

Unclear what change you are seeking. Please clearly state your request in the form "Change X to Y" and please provide reliable sources. Without reliable sources, the change will not be made.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Banaphar is a Rajput clan and they are related to the Rajput warriors alha and udal.In 12th century both shows the Rajput bravery in the medieval period. Articles (reliable sources):1.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=pR5uAAAAMAAJ&q=banaphar+rajput&dq=banaphar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIxsqQy7brAhVdwzgGHcedBHc4ChDoATAEegQIBBAB 2.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ob7UAAAAMAAJ&q=banaphar+rajput&dq=banaphar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIxsqQy7brAhVdwzgGHcedBHc4ChDoATAFegQIAhAB 3.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0-6fAAAAMAAJ&q=banaphar+rajput&dq=banaphar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIxsqQy7brAhVdwzgGHcedBHc4ChDoATACegQICBAB Ultimate survi (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The article already says "Ahir and Rajput" and I'm not sure why you're asking us to add Rajput when it is already there? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion to include something about "Rajput bravery in the medieval period", we would not include that kind of praise in Wikipedia's voice in a Wikipedia article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Because banaphar are not ahir. Banaphar is a rajput clan. They are not mixed clan. Ultimate survi (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The cited source says mixed Ahir and Rajput.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, if someone could explain what the second sentence (the Udal one) means, that would be great!--RegentsPark (comment) 15:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed – it is pretty much impossible to understand this stub. Who is Udal and his descendant, and what do they have to do with Banaphar? In fact the third sentence is also hard to understand – who is Alha, and what does Ahir bravery have to do with it? This is much more important than what the clan origin is! --bonadea contributions talk 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources i have put check them there is no point that they are mixed clans.They are not mixed clans. And udal is alha's younger brother. Both are great warriors and show rajput bravery in medieval period Ultimate survi (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information on the page

Banaphar is a clan of Rajputs Liger1203 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a reliable source if you want the article to say that. Raj-era "ethnographers" like Robert Vane Russell are not reliable sources, as they were not professionally trained and were heavily politically influenced. There's a very good essay at User:Sitush/CasteSources regarding sources for caste-related articles. It doesn't specifically mention Russell, but at the Wikipedia article about him you can see "The Castes and Tribes of the Central Provinces" described as a "highly anecdotal book". He was possibly better than the likes of Herbert Hope Risley (mentioned in the Russell article and in the caste sources essay), but I really don't think we could use "The Castes and Tribes..." as a source here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Saying "According to Cynthia Talbot, that they are related to the Rajput warrior alha and udal" is not sufficient - related to Rajput warriors is not the same as saying the Banaphars are exclusively Rajput, and it does not contradict the source you tried to remove - and you should not remove existing sourced content without a valid reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

And in what way is saying "According to the book written by A.H.Bingley that they related to the Rajput warriors alha and udal" any different? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Banfar were full ahirs

It is biggest misconception in the history is that every kshatriy and every king were raajput, it is not soo. Rajput is mediaeval terminology.. Historians used common term rajpoot for various kings belonging to ahir, jat, gujar,bhar, gond, pasi kings. Satyitihas (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't promote caste hatred on Wikipedia. In Banaphar case only their mother was Ahir. Other communities like Jat, Gond still have their rulers and part of their community. Historians haven't said anything like this, they have just various tribes formed the community. Those tribes not necessarily mean from the above group. RS6784 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

All source just point towards their mother being Ahir. RS6784 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Trying to clarify the topic a bit

I have rewritten the article a little bit so it makes more sense to those who do not know the names Alha and Udar. I also removed the reference to "Udar's descendant" which was very unclear – no descendant was mentioned in the source, nor in the article about Udar –  and to Krishna, who does not seem directly relevant to this article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Banaphar is a Rajput Clan

Alha and Udal are two great warriors of Bundelkhand which belongs to the banaphar community of rajputs.you can see here [1],[2] and these books are not published by any local publisher but by the government of India. And government is for all, so they are not going to publish something with biased views. And mainly , it is written in the Alha Khand that both are Rajputs (kshatriya).

And here are the reliable sources for what I'm saying:-[3],[4] and the link to the books I have given now and above are the books which is written and published by Indian Government. And if somebody wants famous published books then here it is:-[5],[6],and [7]

So please change " is a clan of mixed ahir and rajput origin in india" to "is a clan of rajput origin in india" and " describe ahir bravery " to " describe rajput bravery " or allow me to edit it please (consensus). Eroberar (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A search on Google Books every occurence of "Banaphar Rajputs" is not enough evidence to disprove Ahir heritage. On a lot of these works, only a short excerpt is available on Google Books; we need to see more of the context around these words. For the works that we can see:

• The work by Robert Vane Russell and George Grierson, which date from the British Raj, is not generally considered reliable. See WP:RSCASTE.
• The Talbot book doesn't say for sure that Banaphars are a Rajput clan, saying that their "credentials to be considered Rajput are constantly questioned by neighboring kings." It only says that the Banaphars are "scrupulous in observing the Rajput code of honor" - hardly a definitive yes.

I appreciate your research effort, the Hitelbitel source currently gives the clearest answer. If you could find a source that definitively discusses the history of the Banaphar clan, you're welcome to post another response. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay fine please check these government published books:-[8] , [9] and [10] and the link of those government published books are not from British Raj Era all books are of after independence you can check.

And here some more publish books:- 1.[11] 2.[12] 3.check on the 5th line of this link[13] 4.[14] 5.[15]

And if you can understand hindi or an administrator who can understand hindi and try to help then I can clearly proof that banaphar is rajput clan Eroberar (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't just supply links to Google Books pages with searches for "banafar rajput" – it would be easier to discuss this if you said something about what these sources are or what makes them reliable or useful for this purpose. Some of the links you posted now were simply copies of links you posted before (including the one where the search gives no results at all!), and the one you've numbered "3" above is not a "published book", it is an autogenerated reprint of Wikipedia articles. Saikat K. Bose, author of nr "2" above, is not a historian so probably not a useful source, but he does confirm what the other reliable sources say: the origin of the Banaphar clan is that rajput men married ahir women, which led to a mixed heritage. At some point in history, this was considered to be "bad", but that's not something that should be given too much weight in the article (right now it seems to be the only thing that makes the clan notable!) What this article needs is some more information, relating to its history between the 13th century and today, and presented without any claims to bravery or lack thereof. --bonadea contributions talk 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Alha Khand source (moved from User talk:RegentsPark)

I saw that you have removed my edits, did I do anything wrong, tell me, I will correct it because I edited it according to the WP:RS. Sumit banaphar (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You replaced an academic source with two sources that don't appear to be RS and/or are only tangentially related to the article topic. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I got it what are saying, but Alha Khand[16] by asha gupta is a primary source and totally related to the article so is there any problem with that? Sumit banaphar (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Asha Gupta's source appears to be in Hindi. When we have an academic source in English for the rajput claim, there is no need to add a citation to something that cannot be verified as a reliable source and is also in a non-English language. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok Fine and thanks Sumit banaphar (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You already knew that the primary source Alha Khand cannnot be used to make this claim, and you also knew that Alha Udal Ki Veergatha is not a reliable source. Adding those two sources [17] and then asking about them first at RegentsPark's talk page and then here is not constructive. It takes up the time of your fellow editors who (unlike yourself) might not have been aware of previous discussions. That you also messed up the existing reliable source and removed well-sourced information is also disruptive; you are very well aware of the fact that edits against an existing consensus must be discussed first. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea:- First of all I didn't make any changes without source,if the source I'm providing is not reliable than administrator revert it, and i ask him a reason for that so I don't think so besides you anyone is finding my edits disruptive and don't tell me what I'm aware of and what I'm not aware of, I already asked you before talk to me respectfully and I ask RegentsPark for review because I want genuine reason from a good faith administrator.Sumit banaphar (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:Is this book reliable for the changes I want to make? Because the book is published by the government of India, the author is an administrative officer and the book studying about caste,clan, community and following all the rules of WP:RS please check it.

Book:-Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Author:-Kumar Suresh Singh

Publisher:- Anthropological Survey of India Page.no:- page 1876[18]

Depends on what you're citing but the source itself looks fine to me. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I'm afraid the source is not fine – please see this RSN discussion about the People of India series of books (Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles being one volume in that series). See also this RSN discussion, where the OP specifies that the information he or she wants to add is based on information from the 1920s, which is not something we can use for caste related information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I assumed that the only thing that was being cited was the rajput claim (which already has a citation) but the discussion does give me pause. @Sumit banaphar: Generally, if Fowler and Sitush say a source is not reliable, then it isn't. Sorry!--RegentsPark (comment) 22:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

banarfer is only Rajput clan Kshatriya. 2405:204:A682:DDD2:B8EB:937D:FB0A:6408 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 18:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the Banaphars, Alha, and Udal

This question comes up so often in my watchlist that I actually went to my local library to re-evaluate this in good faith. I read these books in their full, original glory instead of through Google Books' limited page previews. TL;DR: The case that Alha, Udal, and the Banaphars are all mixed Rajput and Ahir is still the strongest.

Alha and Udal are mixed Rajput and Ahir. Hitelbeitel describes how different versions of the epic explain this differently, but the basic gist of it is the same: Alha and Udal's father Dasraj, and another Banaphar named Bachraj, run into two Ahir women named Devi and Birmha and marry them. The context of this story-in-a-story is that the antagonist, Mahil, mentions this to dissuade Rajput leaders from marrying their daughters to our two heroes, so I've seen an argument that Mahil is lying and that the brothers are only Rajput. However, I have yet to find a reference supporting this, and considering how their part-Ahir nature is repeatedly mentioned in the epic, I find this argument hardly convincing.

We know that the Banaphar clan claims to be Rajput, and this makes sense because you'd obviously want to be part of a better caste. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that they're also Ahir because Hitelbeitel (1999) explicitly says so. The reference from Google Books only includes a limited number of pages, but that book actually mentions this multiple times. An editor brought up another reference by Hansen that calls the Banaphars Rajput only, but that reference mentions this in passing as an example of literary texts with inter-caste love and does not elaborate, and is therefore of little value here.

The funny thing is that all this information is already in the article Alha, even though much of it is a copyvio (I'll clean that soon). I must stress that finding "Rajput" next to "Banaphar" and claiming that it proves that the Banaphars are not simultaneously Ahir is very flawed logic. I must also mention that Raj-era sources are generally pretty bad; you might want to read the essay WP:RSCASTE. I tried to look for more references, but couldn't; if you do find a quality reference, let me know.

Pings: RS6784, Gamachuiaaa, Bonadea

• I managed to delete a paragraph. I've put it back. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

• Crowley, Thomas (November 13, 2020). Fractured Forest, Quartzite City : A History of Delhi and its Ridge. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9789353885540.
• Hansen, Kathryn (1992). Grounds for play the Nauṭaṅkī theatre of North India. University of California Press.
• Hiltebeitel, Alf (May 1, 1999). Rethinking India's oral and classical epics: Draupadī among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226340500.

Dear Ganbaruby! The whole story of them is based on ballad. The point would be if ballad or epic considered as reliable because there is no mention of it in any historical sources except the folkloric ballads as per which two Dachhraj and Bachhraj took women from other community for which they were criticised by the members of their community. RS6784 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Pls find the link : [19] page 465 RS6784 (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear, It calls their father Dacchraj and Bacchraj as part of one community. RS6784 (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: thank you for this concise and informative summary! It's excellent that you had a chance to read the books themselves. I have had access to Hiltebeitel's book though I can't get hold of it right now, but you confirm my recollection of what it says. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@RS6784: I'm not quite sure I understand your arguments, but I think it is made pretty clear in the articles that Alha and Udal are legendary figures. The ballads about them are primary sources, so we want to base the Wikipedia article on what scholarly secondary sources say about the ballads. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear bonadea Yes they are mentioned as legendary, but Banaphar is a clan of one particular community and isn't this page deals with Banaphar clan of today. How can we decide background of a community based on a legend? The clan is part of one community. RS6784 (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear GanbarubyBonadea Alf book is based on legend not on the status of that clan in last 200 yrs. I think we should atleast allow verification of present situation of the clan from last 200 yrs sources. pls find this on page 311 [20] RS6784 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@RS6784: That encyclopedia entry is based on William Crooke, a Raj era (and pretty unreliable) "ethnographer". I'm also struggling to understand your argument. People don't get to cherrypick their heritage; if they were mixed-caste in the past, they're mixed-caste now. Hiltebeitel wrote his book in 1999, which is pretty recent, and we're using it because it's the best source we have so far. Please find a source of equal or better quality. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear |Ganbaruby "I'm also struggling to understand your argument. People don't get to cherrypick their heritage; if they were mixed-caste in the past, they're mixed-caste now. Hiltebeitel wrote his book in 1999, which is pretty recent, and we're using it because it's the best source we have so far. Please find a source of equal or better quality." Sorry, but this is not how it works in India especially in a clan based society, it is based on male line descent ( right or wrong is different point of view). Also this particular clan is not only based on two legendary figure, this clan was/is present in other area as well. The real issue is from data to everything all are based on Census and that particular era, The GOI follows it as reference point. If under the name of Raj-era we are going to brush aside simple understanding of a clan then we are imposing our own opinion here. This is why complete restrictions on the use of Raj-era data ( especially for verification in some cases) should be relooked at again. Even most of these writers have quote many things from the same sources in their books. For Mr Alf Hiltebeital, he is talking about a legend which may be true or may not be true not on the clan of a community.

RS6784 (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ganbaruby and all these writers including Alf, Thomas, Kathyrn etc used word " allegedly" described as..., The clan was considered as part of one community ( yes lower division but part of that community, in India every community has its what they call it as upper and lower divisions, that doesn't mean they aren't part of community) even these writers accept it in their book regarding the bkgd. See we don't have all the three writers here on the talk page but as far as their written works are concerned, they specified the bkgd of the clan. RS6784 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@RS6784: What you say may be true, but you'll need a reliable source to back it up. The consensus is to not use Raj-era sources because they're unreliable, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here. Alf Hiltebeitel does not use the word "allegedly", but says it explicitly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ganbaruby thank you for atleast listening to the others point of view, especially of new editors like me. You have been very open and friendly senior editor here which is very rare case. It would be great if others also follow your style of dealing with things. I am very glad with the friendly conversation I had with you. Coming to the point one addition, Alf works deal with two folkloric heroes of the clan and not with the whole clan.

If I find some thing interesting on the topic then I would definitely share with you.

Regards RS6784 (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

Banafar is a Rajput clan. It is not a mixed clan. Please remove this reference of mixed race from the origin and introductory section.

Alha Singh and Udal Singh, the famous generals of Chandel Rajput King Parmardi Dev belonged to Banafar Rajput clan.In the Puranas it is mentioned that mother of Alha Singh and Udal Singh was a Ahir.So,it does not make the whole Banafar clan Ahir in any sense. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alternatively, you can give reasons on why the currently cited source is not reliable. Note that there has been significant discussion above about this topic, and current consensus seems to be in favour of the current statement. Liu1126 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)